the cheorikee is better than you think off airport but check the oleo scisors on every walk aroud! It takes off in about the same distance as a stock 172 but your going alot faster so dont miss.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Thanks for all of your reply's. As usual, there are things Ive failed to consider. I would really like the payload of the 182 and the ability to do some of the basic backcountry strips. The Cherokee actually hauls 1049 pounds and I'm amazed at how many more capable airplanes don't. ( New $550,000 Cirrus Turbo: Useful Load..1080lbs???? Not.

I guess Im afraid of taking the Cherokee off-road because a friend and I were asked to help extract a Warrior from Spiral Jetty a few years ago. The mains could not take the uneven surface and folded. I remember thinking "what kind of Nutsack would bring a Warrior out to a place like that" and now I'm that Nutsack!

Dont know if any of you have read Galen Hanselman's new fly Utah book but it is a superb reference and read. He used his 182 on most of the strips in the book but the Cub guys had the tricky ones all to themselves. That will have to be okay with me (I've got an XR650R for those strips). Oh yeah, Galen wrecked his original 182 on Dark Canyon but he does seem to hit the majority of strips with good skill and a decent plane.

I guess I'm surprised that many dont consider a 182 an able backcountry steed. I def. have a lot to learn.

As for economics, the 12.5 gallon per hour fuel burn would hurt with todays gas prices but I would prolly survive. An engine overhaul I may not. The Cherokee got a Western Skyways reman this past summer and it almost put me over the edge. I should prolly just fly it and enjoy it and work on my flying skills for a while..........but Spiral Jetty calls.......and this little birdie in my head says I can do it.......

Lance

The fuel debate is entertaining as well

Don't fall into the trap of the useful load numbers. Every single 182 was built with 230 HP. The lighter the plane the better they perform. Period. The earlier ones were the lightest. Anybody who says a 182 isn't a capable backcountry plane is an idiot. It's a compromise like any other plane. Hell I sold my 182 and bought a Bonanza, which I've taken to all the same backcountry strips I took the 182. It has certain advantages over the 182 and certain disadvantages.
A Warrior doesn't fold its gear unless somebody landed wrong. The 182's weak link is the nose gear attach point but it can still take a lot of abuse. The Cessna 205/206 has a much better nose gear setup.
As for fuel burn people who worry about it never seem to realize you're not required to burn 12.5 if you don't want to. You probably burn about 9 gph in the Cherokee, so burn that much in the 182. I could burn 14 in my Bo at 75%(285 HP) if I wanted to. But at 8.5 gph I get 145-150 MPH IAS. So I do that a lot.
There's nothing tricky about a runway that a Cub can use or a Cherokee can't. First off is it long enough? With just you and a half tank you're probably going to want 1500 feet, plus or minus a little for density altitude. Second what's the runway surface like? Most strips in Idaho are pretty smooth, no problem for a Cherokee. Third, what's the approach like? That's where a faster bird will have a disadvantage. In the Bonanza I need a little more manuvering room in the vicinity of the airport as I'm a little faster than the 182 I used to have. If I can go out to a 1 mile final and land on the numbers then 1200 feet is all I need. But if I have to turn my base at the approach end for terrain then I'm going to want around 2000 feet. You just need to practice so you know your bird.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:My questions are: How are the 1962E and 1963F models in the backcountry?

Hi Lance,

You asked specifically about '62 or '63 Skylane. Shop carefully and you can get a good one for your stated price range. I flew a stock '62 for 15 years and took it all around Idaho on regular size tires (no pants) without a ding. The wide cabin is nice and comfortable--especially good for a couple of broad-shouldered guys in front. The '62 and '63 have small elevators and can prove challenging to flare @ forward cgs, especially if the front seaters are heavy. The Selkirk extended baggage is a must-do mod for these planes, IMHO. Put some weight in the very back and it solves the small elevator/forward cg flare problem.

Mine was 1725 empty and performed very well with 2 adults + camping gear. Like anything, it's possible to overload it and get into serious trouble at high DAs. I considered adding STOL mods when I first got it, but after I learned how to fly it right decided that it didn't really need the mods to do what I wanted to do with it.

My friend has a '62 Cherokee 180 with the powerflow exhaust. It's light and climbs really well. I think it would do fine in a lot of places with established airstrips. Check out MTV's article in back of the latest pilot getaways. The picture is of a Cherokee departing from Wilson Bar on the Main fork of the Salmon.


CAVU

The guy I ride around with was thinking of selling his square tail 182 w/ horton stol here a while back. I'll hit'em up and see what he's thinking. He'll land on grass strips but hearing what it'd cost to repair the nosegear/firewall keeps us out of the rough stuff. That's why I've been looking at Zeniths etc. lately. If we wad one up we can repair it ourselves plus they're cheap enough to buy outright and just carry liability.
Wirsig.

wirsig wrote:The guy I ride around with was thinking of selling his square tail 182 w/ horton stol here a while back. I'll hit'em up and see what he's thinking. He'll land on grass strips but hearing what it'd cost to repair the nosegear/firewall keeps us out of the rough stuff. That's why I've been looking at Zeniths etc. lately. If we wad one up we can repair it ourselves plus they're cheap enough to buy outright and just carry liability.
Wirsig.

A proper landing in rough terrain does not hurt the nose gear attach point. Landing nosewheel first is what bends the firewall. As long as the mains hit first you'll be hard pressed to hurt the firewall.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Thanks for all of your reply's. As usual, there are things Ive failed to consider. I would really like the payload of the 182 and the ability to do some of the basic backcountry strips. The Cherokee actually hauls 1049 pounds and I'm amazed at how many more capable airplanes don't. ( New $550,000 Cirrus Turbo: Useful Load..1080lbs???? Not.

I guess Im afraid of taking the Cherokee off-road because a friend and I were asked to help extract a Warrior from Spiral Jetty a few years ago. The mains could not take the uneven surface and folded. I remember thinking "what kind of Nutsack would bring a Warrior out to a place like that" and now I'm that Nutsack!

Dont know if any of you have read Galen Hanselman's new fly Utah book but it is a superb reference and read. He used his 182 on most of the strips in the book but the Cub guys had the tricky ones all to themselves. That will have to be okay with me (I've got an XR650R for those strips). Oh yeah, Galen wrecked his original 182 on Dark Canyon but he does seem to hit the majority of strips with good skill and a decent plane.

I guess I'm surprised that many dont consider a 182 an able backcountry steed. I def. have a lot to learn.

As for economics, the 12.5 gallon per hour fuel burn would hurt with todays gas prices but I would prolly survive. An engine overhaul I may not. The Cherokee got a Western Skyways reman this past summer and it almost put me over the edge. I should prolly just fly it and enjoy it and work on my flying skills for a while..........but Spiral Jetty calls.......and this little birdie in my head says I can do it.......

Lance

The fuel debate is entertaining as well

Lance, if you are talking about strips like spiral jetty I wouldn't be worried about the backcountry limitations of the skylane. 90% of the strips in Galens books are easily handeled in a 182. I know because I have done them. The comments made here about the skylanes' shortcomings are mostly reffering to off airport operations, or rough fields. This is where the tail wheel a/c shine. Becoming profficient in conventional gear is very rewarding regardless of where you fly.

I had a Skyways gold engine in the 182 and exceeded TBO easily with a nearly exclusive diet of Mogas. I flight planned for 12 gal/hr and always filled with slightly less than I planned. High altitude cruise was more like 11.5/hr.

Compared to your current ride the Skylane will feel like a rocket ship. Mine weighed 1600lbs, and would consistently outclimb, and go faster than my friends wide body '68. Of course I am an average size guy(5'10" 170) Bigger guys like the later models for good reason.

I would go fly one and see what you think. DO some max performance t/o's and landings with half tanks and two guys (typical load). Just be sure to put some weight in the very back to get some elevator at low speeds.

Your Cherokee, lightly loaded is not a bad back country bird. It will easily handle SJ and the like, if you need someone to go with you I am based at OGD. If you are going to use it for the back country I would get a vg kit, and a tuned exhaust. A friend put the vg kit on his 235 cherokee and it was a huge difference in VX climb.

Above all I would get some quality back country instruction. It will be the best money you ever spent!!!
I hope all of this helps you, good luck!

A proper landing in rough terrain does not hurt the nose gear attach point

Landings not really the concern as much as taxiing through a cow path, coyote den, rootball hole, etc. and fold'n the thing. Not to mention the fact that the prop's probably gonna do some plow'n if that happens. I couldn't count the number of times I've dropped the front of the pickup off in holes out'n our pastures that a guy couldn't see until it was too late. In this area rocks aren't an issue as much as holes.

I see, as previously mentioned, the topic got changed to gas, but it has come full circle back to airplanes.

I am going back to the auto gas a minute. I had 1800 hours on a Lycoming 180 hp O-360, run on auto gas. Only because it went into a pond and sank, and insurance was paying for a tear down and re assembly, did I go ahead and have it over hauled then.

The shop (G&N) said they didn't think I was burning auto gas because it looked so good. After taking the road tax off the auto gas, I was saving $1.50 per gallon X 9 gal/hr = $24,000 savings just to the 1800 hours. I was planning to hit 2500 hours). That savings was an overhaul, plus $7000 in my pocket.

I now have 600 hours on the new engine and am still using autogas.

I fly 3 days a week, year round and pre heat in the winter with an electric desk heater.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Hi Folks,

I’m a Newbie here who’s been lurking on this site for quite a while. I’ve absolutely got Backcountry flying on the brain!! I can’t get rid of it!!! Help me!! However, my 68 Cherokee 180 will have limited use in the backcountry and despite my love for 62L, I’m plotting a replacement. I’m not trying to break into Cub-country, rather explore the many fine dirt/grass strips in So.Utah and Idaho.

I really want a 182 and I have a few questions for the group as it sounds like there are a couple of Skylane fans out there. I think the 182 will have the best mix of payload, speed and ruggedness for the buck.

My budget would be 50 -60K (wish it were more). The 182’s are coming down in price along with the rest of GA but I wondered which of the early models suit the Backcountry the best. My favorites are the ’59 and ’60 models. People say the fastback 182’s really are faster and lighter on the controls but they also have lower gross weights. Payload is a big issue for me. The wing-X anti-gravity wing extensions/gross weight appears expensive and involved.

My questions are: How are the 1962E and 1963F models in the backcountry? I like the bigger cabin for sure (I’m a college football sized guy) and the center stack radios. Bigger back seat and room as well, but does this detract from its usefulness on shorter strips? It seems like the anything newer has to be in ratty shape to be considered but there are some ’64 and ’65 planes in the mix. I’m hoping to find something with a mid-time motor.

I’ve been told that one can add a heavy-duty nose fork and larger tires for less than 2 grand, and a couple grand more for a STOL kit. Does this sound right? Also I hear there is a ‘nosegear beef-up kit’ that re-inforces the firewall and a ‘tail beef-up kit’ to strengthen the tail?? Anyone have info or numbers on that??

Any other general info or secrets would be appreciated.

Hats off to all of you by the way!! This forum is much more informative and seems to have a higher caliber (knowledge wise) group than any of the others I frequent. Thanks in advance for your input.

Good to be along…..

Lance

Lance, sent you a PM.

C ya, Bub

I believe that Skybob and Skylane each fly 182's with stock nose gear. I know that Skybob goes into Owahee Res quite often. A big tire up front would be nice but not necessary.

If Skylane can get into an early cabin 182 then most can. No insult intended.

I would stay with the 61 or earlyer cus when you trim it back for final, the nose is really light. The 61 and the 62 models are way different planes to fly.

Tim

Bub,

Hope you don't mind if I post you PM...I think its useful. Thanks again.

Lance, sent some picture via e-mail, did they come through OK?

My take on the 182:

I have flown 59, 60, 65, 68, 74, and 78 fixed gear and a 78 RG model.

In my 60 model, I've put 2 big guys in front, me at 250 lbs, and Doug at 285. With the early Skylane we couldn't sit side by side, since we're both too wide. So the flying pilot had his seat forward and the non flying pilot had his seat aft. Just have to agree whom is flying.

I chose the 60 model because it has the semi center stack and manual flaps and trimable horizontal stabilizer. The trimable horizontal stabilizer is a great option, 59, 60, 61 are all about the same. 59 has the straight tail, two side windows, 60 and 61 swept tail, three side windows. 62 or 63 went to the omni rear window and electric flaps. I went from a "54" 180 to the 182. Pretty much the same performance and $1000 a year less insurance, and not near the sweat in cross winds. I added the larger nose fork and bigger tire for landing on the dirt strips and gravel roads in my area. It is the holes you need to worry about. Even with the fork, STOL kit and droop tips, good pilot technique is a must. I can take off at gross in 800 to 1000 feet, with 2 people and half tanks closer to 600 and climb at 75 at 1500 fpm.

My empty weight is 1545, with a 1005 pound useful load. 22 inchs and 2400 rpm @ 10,000 feet will burn 12.3, 19/2200=10.8, One can get down more 17/2100 less than 10 GPH. But what's the point there. Normally I'm going somewhere and have full throttle at 2350.

This was to be my last plane. My next step was to put a PPonk O-470-50 in it with three bladed prop. If I do keep her I will replace the droop tips, I'm not sure if they help much or not, but were on it when I got it. I would add VGs too. However Collage bound kids have changed that plan.

When the 182 went to the wider cabin they discontinued the trimable horizontal stabilizer, big mistake in my way of thinking.

Lance, if there is a way we can get together I'd take you for a ride so you could see what I'm talking about. ??

C ya, Bub

Lance not a problem, Just did it via PM as it was pretty wordy

See ya, Bub

Thanks Lance. Bub, why are you trying to go under the radar anyway?! We want your opinion.

1SeventyZ wrote:Thanks Lance. Bub, why are you trying to go under the radar anyway?!

Oh I figured it was pretty wordy.

Then someone would say get a Maule, or Scout

and Lance PM'ed me, so I pm'ed him back.

C ya, Bub

Yes, that is right I just have the standard front fork and standard size tire. I don't land in many places that is that rough. As someone said most of the backcountry landing strips in FLY IDAHO are doable in a 182. Not the ones that are strictly super champ strips. I have landed in a wheat field without and trouble. Land on the mains and hold back yoke pressure.
keep the weight off of the front wheel as much as you can. Bob

Re: back-country op's in a warrior-- never looked real close at a warrior, but if it's like it's older brother the Cherokee the prop is awful low to the ground. I watched a couple friends taxi away from their just-off-the-taxiway camping spot at the Prosser fly-in several years ago & really cringed when the prop tips just barely cleared the ground when the nosewheel hit a little dip. If it had been even a small pothole, the prop woulda buzzed for sure. Maybe a booster spring and/or rubber hose mod on the oleo like I've seen on 182's would be a good idea.

Eric

TwinPOS wrote:Run Mogas in your strait tail skylane, and it will get out shorter, climb stronger, carry more and go faster, on roughly the same fuel cost as a 180hp/172. The L model and later O-470 is a great motor and will last you a long time.

(skylane)130knots on 12 gal/hr = 10.83mpg @ 2.80/gal (local)=.26/mile
(skyhawk)120knots on 9 gal/hr = 13.3 mpg @ 4.56/gal (local)=.34/mile

food for thought

My son tagged along with us to AK in his 170 two years ago. I flew formation on him with the 185 the entire way. Every time we fueled I took the same quantity he did. If one is worried about fuel burn and isn't in a hurry, throttle back and the fuel flow goes down.

I love what the 185 does for us, but the 182 is really hard to beat...and much easier to fly. I would buy one with a runout engine and get a 2,000 hr TBO, Pponk O-470-50 with Millennium cylinders (275 HP).

Okay,

Your the second guy to recommend the P-ponk engine mod. Would you mind enlightening this Piper guy on what exactly that entails and what it costs.

The 2000 hr. TBO has my attention but many say the reg. 0-470 is bulletproof to TBO and beyond.

Thanks,

Lance

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Okay,

Your the second guy to recommend the P-ponk engine mod. Would you mind enlightening this Piper guy on what exactly that entails and what it costs.

The 2000 hr. TBO has my attention but many say the reg. 0-470 is bulletproof to TBO and beyond.

Thanks,

Lance

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/O470_conversion.html

FWIW my first aviation mentor flies a '58 182A. This man has flown just about every single engine taildragger under the sun servicing uranium mines in the desert and up in Alaska, and he settled on a 182A as his personal plane to fly in the Arizona and Utah backcountry. If he is ever foolish enough to sell I will be first in line (he is a A&P/IA and I've seen his work.)

There are several 57-59 182's for sale on Barnstormers now with asking prices in the $45K range on mid-time engines, I could almost trade even for my 170B if I were so inclined. The advice on fuel burn above should be taken to heart, just because a O-470 burns 12gph at standard cruise doesn't mean you can't pull it back and burn less going slower, plus you have to look at miles per gallon as well as GPH if you are traveling! As someone calculated above there is only about 3mpg difference between the two planes, even less on the 180 hp, and that can only improve as you pull that MP back.

Landis offers a STC for a larger reinforced nosefork and 8.50 tires all around for most single engine Cessnas including the 182, but it doesn't eliminate the firewall attachment weakness.

I know that the 170 was certified allowing up to 8.00 tires without any additional basis of approval. Not sure if the 182 allows anything larger than the 6.00 tire without a field approval or STC, someone on here probably knows.

If I were buying a 182A or B I would pay for 1) inertia reel chest harnesses, 2) extended baggage mod, and 3) an inspection of the existing fuel bladders before I would do anything about a different nosefork or tires or extended fuel mods, but my and my girlfriend's bladders often set our endurance range, not fuel capacity.

Consider this an unbiased opinion because I don't own one, but a 182 is in my opinion about the most flexable, useful and affordable aircraft ever built. If you can't take a 182 there, then what kind of tricycle gear four place certified airplane can you take there? One thing we usually don't mention here because it just isn't required for backcountry ops is Instrument capability. In my opinion, an instrument rated and proficient pilot in a capable airframe is simply a safer pilot and a 182 is a very good IFR platform.
All aircraft are compromises, and most of us have different needs. I love a 182, but one didn't fit my needs. I needed a TW for my job and couldn't afford a nice 180 or 185, so I ended up with what I have. I think most of us don't get to fly our dream, but fly what we can afford.
I've been following the fuel thing for a few years now, and am now burning Mogas in a little C-85. My take on it is that Mogas is not as good a fuel as 100LL for airplanes, has problems, and is not a suitable replacement. However, I believe it can be safely used by someone that is edjucated about it's limitations and takes the apprioate measures, but if don't then you may have problems with it. Many, many airplanes have flown with it for many years without problems, and that is hard to ignore.